Robert Gates On DADT: No Opt-Out For Opponents Of Gays In The Military

FORWARD OPERATING BASE DWYER, Afghanistan –- Defense Secretary Robert Gates bluntly told Marines on Sunday that they won't be able to opt out of their enlistment just because they disagree with a government decision to end a ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Gates, who is on a tour of Afghanistan to bid farewell to the troops before stepping down at the end of the month, was quizzed by a Marine sergeant about the controversial policy during a question and answer session at a base in southwestern Helmand Province.

Congress voted in December to repeal the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which allows gays to serve in the military only so long as they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. The Marine Corps has been one of the services most resistant to the change.

The new policy will not go into force until 60 days after the president, defense secretary and nation's top uniformed military officer certify that it can be implemented without affecting military readiness. The military is currently in the process of training service members about the new policy.

"Sir, we joined the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps has a set of standards and values that is better than that of the civilian sector. And we have gone and changed those values and repealed the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy," the sergeant told Gates during the question and answer session.

"We have not given the Marines a chance to decide whether they wish to continue serving under that. Is there going to be an option for those Marines that no longer wish to serve due to the fact their moral values have not changed?" he asked.

"No," Gates responded. "You'll have to complete your ... enlistment just like everybody else."

"The reality is that you don't all agree with each other on your politics, you don't agree with each other on your religion, you don't agree with each other on a lot of things," he added. "But you still serve together. And you work together. And you look out for each other. And that's all that matters."

Gates said training was underway to prepare the services for the new policy.

"If we do this right, nothing will change," he said. "You will still have to abide by the same rules of behavior, the same discipline, the same respect for each other that has been the case through all the history of the Marine Corps."

Congress acted to repeal the 17-year-old ban in December. Gates backed the move, partly out of concern that legal challenges were on the verge of forcing an overturn of the policy, a move that would have required the Defense Department to implement the changes with little preparation.

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[zt54]

08:00 PM on 06/14/2011

Anything goes for Obama's central planning politburo if it means a vote. Its not about fairness, honor or holding a higher standard that the Marines are currently held to. Gates, Mullens sold out cheaply to this crooked and morally corrupt Presidency.

Coming next is unions in uniform. We are lost unless we vote these *********** out of office.

[cjgdnight]

05:07 PM on 06/10/2011

Scenario. Say military men and women shower/ berth together. The woman gets raped. She says... of course I got raped... I have to shower with someone who is sexually oriented to me. The guy says... I didn't want to rape her... but military leadership put us in a shower together and I couldn't control myself. As a military leader, a large part of your job is to provide safe living conditions for your troops and promote a healthy working environment.. so this is not satisfactory. Lawyer field day.

Same scenario, two males (straight and gay).... How does a commander provide for the safety of his troops? He can"t because they are showering/ berth together by policy.

NOW... the straight accuses the gay guy is "looking at his junk". Is he a homophobe or is the gay guy a predator? How do you decide that as a commander in the field? The decision becomes more difficult if the person is openly gay. So, dismiss the charge of predator and later the straight guy is sexually assaulted...­. that is not ok. And these things happen. People who may be sexually attracted to each other shouldn't be enabled by policy to misbehave.

There is a newsweek article on sexual assault being a problem in the military. Do we think it is reasonable that enlisting more gay personnel thereby letting people with sexual orientation towards one another shower/ sleep together will reduce that number?

[Erin Scott]

06:43 PM on 06/10/2011

How old are you?

[cjgdnight]

09:10 PM on 06/10/2011

Why do you want to disciminate against me for age?

How old are you?

[Marc Hampton]

10:02 AM on 06/13/2011

"gay" does not mean the same thing as "predator."

and here's some bonus truth to go with it: gays are not anywhere near as obsessed with gay sex as anti-gay straights are.

[Eddie Green]

01:24 AM on 06/09/2011

Lets remember the average service member was born between 1980 and 1993. They have lived their whole life with things like MTV and the internet. They have seen their classmates come out in Juinor High. they have watched kids fight to take same sex dates to the prom. They are more likely to have experimented sexually themselves. Being around gay people isn't as big a deal for them. As far as being watched in the shower: I keep seeing videos of troops overseas acting goofy in their jockstraps so Im guessing they aren't too hung up on modesty.

[billsmith98]

01:04 AM on 06/09/2011

Why is it that normals always seem to have to make the acommodation? Just once it would be nice to have people just keep thier personal lives to themselves.

[Erin Scott]

09:41 AM on 06/09/2011

Ok Bill, yeah let's all keep our personal lives to ourselves. No more weddings and baby showers. No more acknowledging if you're married. No more discussing significant others at work, or else you're fired. Sound fair. Stop being childish.

[billsmith98]

10:37 AM on 06/09/2011

Not being childish, just tired of normal people being subjected to the lifestyle of those that are by definition "abnormal" and being told that we have to make accomadations.
Where will it stop?

[Erin Scott]

09:51 AM on 06/09/2011

There is nothing abnormal about being gay or bisexual. That has long been established. Such people have always existed, and their relationships are no different than straight ones other than gender-pairing. There is no rational basis upon which to call them abnormal. Less common does not mean abnormal, and if every single person in this world with even the slightest bicuriosity came out and admitted it, you'd see it's much more common than you think. People like you have nothing of worth to contribute to this discussion. You're simply out to dehumanize an entire group of people. That is called bigotry. Gay people have heterosexuality in their faces 24/7, and yet we don't bitch about it, probably because we know what it's like to be treated like crap just because other people are immature about our sexuality and insecure about their own, and they take it out on us.

[billsmith98]

04:51 AM on 06/10/2011

I think you are making a choice to misunderstand my point. I do not advocate any sort of discrimination, in fact i am very much for equal rights. Therin is my point if i as part of the majority continue to have to suffer simply to apease the vast minority simply because they are louder and it is PC then i am being wronged.

I am simply asking that everyone be treated equally and that is not what is happening either with respect to race or to being gay.

Just because you choose to live as you do that choice does not give you any special privilage.
Just because you were born a certain color does not give you any special privilage or at least it shouldnt.

Frankly i dont care who you sleep with as long as me and mine are not forced to accept it as normal...just because you say it is.

[Darcy24]

11:29 AM on 06/08/2011

You know, every time you go to a public gym locker room and shower, you are vey likely showering with homosexuals present. And yet, how many time have you heard of men being raped by other men in public showers? Or school showers? Or military showers? Or in any public place where they have showers? If it is as dangerous as homphobes say it is, you'd have to go in there dressed in armor and carrying an automatic rifle just to escape alive.

Businesses wouldn't even have gym showers due to insurance liability. No insurance company would cover an enterprise where customers are always getting raped. I don't know if this is wishful thinking on the part of homophobes or not, but it's not always about you. Sometimes gay people like to get clean too - they don't spend every shower their entire lives thinking about who to rape next.

[cjgdnight]

12:11 AM on 06/09/2011

The difference Darcy is that you don't shower, then stand 12 hours of watch, then sleep in the same berthing with that person in the public sector. This is why military "friends" tend to be lifelong friends. They spend so much time together that they honestly know things about each other their spouses don't even know. It is simply a different evironment.

[Erin Scott]

12:37 AM on 06/09/2011

So what? Straight men will be in close quarters with some homosexuals. They already have been. The difference is now the gay guy doesn't get dihnonorably discharged if someone finds out he's gay. That's it. If you can't be comfortable around a gay person, that is your problem, and it is a reflection of your own irrational fear, irrational hatred, insecurity, or any or all of the above.

[persuter]

10:38 PM on 06/09/2011

"The difference Darcy is that you don't shower, then stand 12 hours of watch, then sleep in the same berthing with that person in the public sector."

And what? What point are you trying to make here? That a gay guy isn't going to rape you in the shower but he might rape you after 12 hours of watch?

How is your point about lifelong friends even relevant? I've got plenty of straight lifelong friends.

[cjgdnight]

11:09 PM on 06/07/2011

To all of you who accuse me of making stuff up..... OK... you asked for it you got it. The DOD SAPRO report. So what say you now?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2522016/posts

An excerpt from a guy who really did the number crunching:
".....which means the FRC number is understating what the real incidence rate which is somewhere closer to 4-8X more likely than the general heterosexual recruit population"

[Erin Scott]

11:35 PM on 06/07/2011

That's it? The Family Research Council? FAIL.

[Erin Scott]

11:53 PM on 06/07/2011

This from the guy who sarcastically told the rest of us that we weren't friendly toward facts. I knew this would happen. I knew if any such "study" existed, it would be from some far-right whackjobs who make their living off of scaring people into donating money into every cause against gays and abortion rights for women. Mr. Peter Sprigg also failed to cite where he got his numbers from or which officials in the military confirmed any of his "facts." And for the last time, same-sex "assaults" does not mean those responsible are gay. You fail to understand what makes a resource or a study even remotely credible. You also fail to understand time and again the nature of acts of rape as opposed to sexual orientation. Your ignorance, paired with your blatant homophobia, whether a projection of own self hatred or a result of child rearing by your equally ignorant parents who over -emphasized masculinity and under- emphasized intelligence, is rather pathetic.

[cjgdnight]

11:03 AM on 06/08/2011

Erin... such anger. It is a SAPRO report.. a government report.. thank you. You can look it up. The FRC merely looked at the results.. they did not commisision the report. In any event... it is not logically solid to put people who may be attracted together in the same shower.... doesn't pass the common sense test.

AND if you read the comments... the person who did the analysis for the report said gays are 8x more likely to commit sexaul assault.... I know it difficult to move your lips and read, but you must push through.


Your personal attack is absolutely uncalled for. The facts in this report stand on their own. And I do understand all the things you talked about. Your rant is uninformed and what I expect from any minority community when they face FACTS. See it is easy for your to categorize me and objectify me without ever meeting me. For example, I have an IQ over 160... and several post graduate degress later.. I look at facts... not hysteria and emotional outbursts. From your reaction here, the gay community doesn't want to face facts.

Why I like this analysis is that the actual report said 2x more likely.... and having worked in the government, I know how data gets manipulated to get the right answer. The analyst basically said the number was watered down to fit someone's agenda.

[Vikingdave]

12:23 PM on 06/07/2011

My question is. In the chaplin corp, will individual chaplins be allowed to opt out of serving the spiritual needs of lgbt troops?

[pakaal]

02:36 PM on 06/07/2011

My question is, would any person of sincere faith condemn the sinner AND the sin by refusing to serve the spiritual needs of his/her troops?

[Joseph Bishop]

03:04 PM on 06/07/2011

The next question in that line is, are they going to be required to leave the part of their religion that condemns being gay out of their teachings?

[Vikingdave]

06:41 PM on 06/07/2011

The reason I asked is, I heard that in some instances( fortunately few) this was occurring. Where SOME chaplains were reticent to serve gay or lesbian troops. It also reminded me of where board certified pharmacists are allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because of conscience.

[buggeroffyou666]

03:16 PM on 06/07/2011

Chaplin's don't need to be there on the taxpayers dime anyway.

[Ioan Lightoller]

04:46 PM on 06/07/2011

Excellent point. Especially those that cannot be chaplains to ALL service personnel.

[structurequity]

11:49 AM on 06/07/2011

Gates should have said ' and the gay people, should they also be able to opt out?' What a sergeant, a leader of men, speaking from 'his' true god given pulpit enabled viewpoint of being right about his beliefs...

[dccruzer5]

10:19 AM on 06/07/2011

Brings to mind lyrics by Jewel: "Do you hate them because they're pieces of you?"

[Ioan Lightoller]

11:59 AM on 06/07/2011

Fanned and faved! It is heterosexuals in large part who create GLBT children, then turn on them. I see this over and over and over.

[limstillme]

09:13 PM on 06/07/2011

I've noticed that some song writers write something stupid and fans that are even dumber say, Wow, what does that mean? It must be really deep!

[dccruzer5]

11:17 PM on 06/08/2011

What that means, for anyone too simple-minded to grasp it: Our hatred for others is most often brought on because of the fear that we possess the same qualities. If you have no fear of that sort....you have no need of hate. It's not deep at all.....but then, I understand if you happen to be too shallow to get it.

[Joseph Bishop]

05:02 AM on 06/07/2011

Male and Female soldiers have separate sleeping and bathing facilities. Are they going to separate gays and straights? What is the difference in male and females showering together and a gay and straight of the same gender showering together? If they are going to put gays and straights of the same sex together, why not just go ahead and make the entire military co-gender and be done with it? Let everyone do everything together then there will truly be no discrimination.

[Erin Scott]

08:55 AM on 06/07/2011

If you can't see the difference, there is probably no use getting through to you. With repeal, gays in the showers will still do what they always did; keep their eyes and hands to themselves because anything else would be an idiotic decision that would invite violence upon them. Did you go to public school and take gym class? If you answered yes; you have been changing, possibly showering with gay males as a civilian. A man can more likely hold his own if another male assaults him in the shower. (FYI: male on male rape is not necessarily committed by a gay male, since rape is a violent act of aggression meant to dominate and intimidate, not an act of lust or attraction. There are stories of gay males being targeted for rape by straight males) Like it or not, generally women are smaller and physically weaker than men, and while a gay male hitting on a straight male seems to be so taboo and seems to invite mob violence against gay men on occasion, gang rape of women seems to be a popular past time among many circles of twisted straight men.

[Ellie Bishop]

10:04 AM on 06/07/2011

Joseph asks this question as someone that served 8 years in the US Navy. It was not intended to be derogatory towards gay service personnel in the slightest, just bringing up a point that as married couples are often 'forced' to live in separate quarters and that gay service members will now receive preferential treatment above that of heterosexuals. Everything should be equal for everyone: period. And yes, I speak from personal experience as I am his wife of many years, including while he was serving as a recruiter for our beloved Navy and am the daughter of an Army (Nam) veteran as well.

[cjgdnight]

11:22 AM on 06/07/2011

Male on male rape is 8 x more likely with homosexuals. In fact sexual assault is 8x more likely with gay members initiating the assault.... study just came out two months ago. Those darn facts keep getting in the way.

The point.... gang rape of women is a popular past time...... so they should shower together? Yeah... no. With gay males 8x more likely to commit sexual assault... they shower together? yeah... no.

Showering with people you are attracted to increases the likelyhood of sexual assault... whether it happens in the shower or not. In most cases of military male on male assault, the victim is drugged and no defense is made.

[susandiane]

09:08 AM on 06/07/2011

Gays are already serving. But I bet you wouldn't know that.

[Ellie Bishop]

10:10 AM on 06/07/2011

Actually he does, very well in fact. His years of active duty gave him great insight and many of our friends from that time are indeed homosexual.

[Bart Vincelette]

10:49 PM on 06/06/2011

Most of America's allies have included gays in their armed forces & the only results have been positive. Why it is such a hurdle for US forces is beyond me. Years ago, even Barry Goldwater said : "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight."

[sidejobwarriors]

04:43 AM on 06/07/2011

it depends on what part of the body you are shooting at?

[Ioan Lightoller]

11:50 AM on 06/07/2011

FLAGGED, hater.

[Vikingdave]

12:12 PM on 06/07/2011

Bart. " Why it is such a hurdle for US forces is beyond me".
One word. RELIGION.

[buggeroffyou666]

03:29 PM on 06/07/2011

And the idea of a bunch of heavily armed soldiers thinking that they take their orders from a myth is oh so very scary. think Taliban.

[Ioan Lightoller]

10:47 PM on 06/06/2011

The raw bigotry and ignorance of some posters is almost unbelievable. All DADT means is that GLBT servicepeople will not have to lie about themselves. Suddenly we get mass terror of (oh, horrors!) known gay men in the showers, all the way to threats of "friendly fire" and gays sent to the front lines to be killed off. You people are all sick. I'm sure that decent straight people are disgusted as well. You all make me glad I'm not straight or Christian.

[WheelsOnFire]

11:47 PM on 06/06/2011

Another brilliant post, Loan.

You've accurately noted that those opposed to gays serving openly in the military have no logical nor any reasonable case to make. It's childish bigotry and selfishness.

[Ioan Lightoller]

12:32 AM on 06/07/2011

Agreed x100.

[tj123123]

05:29 AM on 06/07/2011

Most of them have not served and have no idea of what they speak of.

Just a bunch of haters.

If it was such a problem, there would be many members of the armed services posting

[KMAJ]

03:06 AM on 06/07/2011

I'm straight and Christian and serving on active duty in the Army. I do not have any problems with this new policy. I have equal respect for all my fellow Soldiers.

I feel that it's kind of ironic that you punctuate a post against ignorance and bigotry with an ignorant and bigoted remark.

I see your initial point as valid, and I acknowledge your separating decent straight people. I just think your point could have been made without the last part.

[Ioan Lightoller]

11:55 AM on 06/07/2011

It is the hatred and bigotry of many Christians that caused me to seek a religion of peace and love. Get over yourself. Do you speak out against Christianist hatred and bigotry? Or you one of those "silent progressive Christian types". Do not condescend to tell me what I should feel...the laws are weighted in your favour. I am still waiting for equal rights and much of the effort to continue to deny us rights is spearheaded by Christians.

[sergal stew]

10:08 PM on 06/06/2011

Code Red

[JacH]

09:49 PM on 06/06/2011

While I have no problem with being open with sexuality, it really doesn't have a place in the military or any professional realm because sexuality is NOT RELEVANT to ability to perform work operations. Forcing someone to be quiet about it is shameful, but I also disagree with refusing the "opt-out" option. It is basically allowing one group more rights while taking away the rights of another group. In the end it does not repair any rifts, real or imaginary.

[tj101]

10:16 PM on 06/06/2011

They have the choice to opt-out. It's called Dishonorable Discharge. No benefits.

If they can't uphold the oath they took, they do not deserve an Honorable Discharge. They also have the choice not to re-enlist. They have many choices.

What rights are being taken away from heteros? Can you elaborate?

[Ioan Lightoller]

10:38 PM on 06/06/2011

I'd really like to know what "rights" straights will lose if we are given all the same rights they are, too.

[WheelsOnFire]

11:50 PM on 06/06/2011

Allowing bigots to opt out confers special rights upon them, doesn't it?

How ironic.

[buggeroffyou666]

08:19 AM on 06/07/2011

F/F But man every time I see your SN I have the need for some Susie and the Banshees or some Pet Shop Boys.

[limstillme]

09:21 PM on 06/07/2011

Do you actually know the dictionary definition of the word bigot? And why do you call people that disagree with your views a bigot?

[Atwill]

08:21 PM on 06/06/2011

what the hell does that have to do with being open? you think if a gay person DOESNT say they are gay, they will not have it? With DADT gays can be in, but have to be quiet. So how does it suddenly make them have aids if they are open? plus, DR. Tugs. they test all blood now. DUH. This is not the TV show MASH.

[Ioan Lightoller]

10:04 PM on 06/06/2011

You know I often wonder about the thought processes of some who post here. Unbelievable. Now that GLBT people will soon be able to serve openly they come up with all these doomsday sceanarios. No one is more or less likely to have HIV if they are serving openly or not.

And, yes, blood is now tested---DUH, indeed.

[sidejobwarriors]

04:57 AM on 06/07/2011

where did you go wrong

[buggeroffyou666]

11:10 PM on 06/06/2011

You are stupid on stilts.

[Ioan Lightoller]

12:35 AM on 06/07/2011

Love it! Thank you for the late evening chuckle.